If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's difficult to believe in man-made global warming when even the IPCC (the figurehead of the entire movement, and the apex of alarmist's appeal to authority) says "Hmmm, it appears we may not have been right,".

I think it's safe to say that global warming (including the man-made variety) is utterly inconclusive, at best.

What orignally aroused my interst in this subject was the sudden interest in it by politicians and special interest groups.
The proposal of Carbon Trading and politcally expedient shunning of various energy sources without reasonable alternative sources has all the makings of a gigantic tax grab.

Please accept the fact that I, like most of you, want and hope to produce a smaller footprint on the earth and better manage the resources we have but disproportionate taxation is not the way to do this.
Currently that is the only option on the table according to the most recent summit meetings.
Not a word about population explosion, overharvesting or the use of sulphur contianing fossil fuels to drive low quality industries.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

^it is disconcerting. I have supported the idea of carbon capture being invested in by the Province, with a view to creating in Alberta a technology that could be sold to other countries, or with a view to simply selling clean energy.

I'm not so sure now, this may not be the best way to eliminate pollution or improve energy efficiency, if we don't know whether or not Co2 emissions are a concern. It could just be, a billion dollars, down the drain.

While on the subject of local carbon capture:
Should we be looking at using our energy closer to home by developing industries locally that are energy dependant?
It seems that transporting energy to other markets and then subsequently using that same energy to import finished goods back is somewhat counter productive and excessively wasteful.

Last edited by Old Dawg; 22-02-2010 at 12:45 PM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

How many more of these types of stories do we need before governments stop making major policy and budget decisions based on inconclusive science? There is so much evidence that the research has not been fairly managed, how can they keep relying on it?

Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

How many more of these types of stories do we need before governments stop making major policy and budget decisions based on inconclusive science? There is so much evidence that the research has not been fairly managed, how can they keep relying on it?

Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

Governments desperate for money to address increasing deficits are willing to believe in anything that will increase taxation.
It's becoming increasingly obvious as each day unfolds to an empty Govt purse.
One government, one currency , one proletariat.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

There's little point trying to convince people of the facts when they often won't even recognize objective fact, respond with unverified "facts", strawman arguments and every other bunk debating tactic under the sun. For the millionth time, there's little debate in the scientific community about whether or not the Earth is warming, it unquestionably has been for over a century at a rate far outside historical norms. Yet in this very thread we have people postulating about entering a cooling phase based upon an essay or blog by an aeronautical engineer that contains no actual scientific research. The earth is cooling because one part of the ocean has cooled for a few years? Come on. There are ocean current cycles that last several decades that could easily account for that (and that admittedly are still not well understood), it says nothing about climate change, just like the weather outside right now says little or nothing about the world's overall climate and where it's trending.

So what's the point? In some people's eyes, a blog or essay carries the same academic weight as hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies. People who so fundamentally misunderstand the process of research and who have little interest in doing anything other than convincing themselves of the opinions they already hold aren't going to be swayed by posting dozens of citations about why they're wrong. They'll just go find another blog or essay or error in a single study that they think invalidates the entirety of climatological research to reaffirm themselves.

So what's the point? In some people's eyes, a blog or essay carries the same academic weight as hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies.

The point you are closing your eyes to, is that it is the critical data that most of those "peer reviewed" studies relied on, which it turns out, is unreliable and inconclusive to draw conclusions from. Acadmic papers, that were supposedly perfect per you (because they were "peer reviewed"), are right now being retracted left, right and centre.

So what's the point? In some people's eyes, a blog or essay carries the same academic weight as hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed, published scientific studies.

The point you are closing your eyes to, is that it is the critical data that most of those "peer reviewed" studies relied on, which it turns out, is unreliable and inconclusive to draw conclusions from. Acadmic papers, that were supposedly perfect per you (because they were "peer reviewed"), are right now being retracted left, right and centre.

Actually no, they're not. A small handful of ACTUAL research papers have had errors. We're talking not even half a dozen. The IPCC itself was not research, but a conglomeration or summary of existing research (some peer reviewed, some not), that has been found to have included things that shouldn't be, and overall is a fairly typical bureaucratic mess. That doesn't invalidate the vast majority of underlying research that's not been found to be problematic and in fact many scientists in the IPCC argued that the conclusions it drew were TOO conservative.

And a lot of the "unreliable and inconclusive data" pointed out by MacIntyre and others (he's a statistician, so finding errors in methodology used to smooth over gaps in data that are IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate entirely is his "bag" so to speak) has been gladly accepted by researchers and integrated in to revised studies and research. It's unfortunate, I agree, that some researchers have reacted as they have with resistance, but most have been gracious and those that weren't have had their hands slapped and are playing nicer.

I have to wonder why most weathermen/ climateologists can't predict the local weather with any accuracy more than 7 days in advance while some of you are willing to believe that other folks train in this "black art" are capable of hundred year forcasts using data from substantially the same equipment and sources?

I am skeptical of what is causing the climate change ,if it is indeed changing, and how that relates to human activity on the planet.

As we all here have computers and at the very least access to "google" it seems perhaps best to try to read the existing literature before digging our heels in for a debate.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Well you could start with looking up the difference between "weathermen" and climatologists, and/or the difference between meteorology and climatology and why the inability to be 100% prescient about weather in a week says little or nothing about climatologist's ability to make predictions of changes in the average global climate when we make significant changes to the composition of our atmosphere.

Well you could start with looking up the difference between "weathermen" and climatologists, and/or the difference between meteorology and climatology and why the inability to be 100% prescient about weather in a week says little or nothing about climatologist's ability to make predictions of changes in the average global climate when we make significant changes to the composition of our atmosphere.

Well I guess you told me!

I was making a point about using "data" to predict future natural occurrences.

It's much like using chicken bones to determine the fate of some zombie believers.

It's rather difficult to have a meaningful conversation when the object becomes a critque of the writer instead of the idea.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?

It's not the percentage of the atmosphere that it makes up that matters, it's the impact that growing percentage has. Remember that relatively minute amounts of CFCs were responsible for creating massive holes in the ozone layer.

^CFC's are an entirely man made substance. Co2 is a perfectly natural result of all living animals, and is the food of plants. Even the Co2 derived from burning fossil fuels (which makes up a tiny percentage of the new Co2 released each year) is no more than a return of natural organic derived carbon into the natural lifecylce of the earth. It will eventually be swallowed up by plants, become fosilized, and be burned again one day by some future species (if we aren't still around).

Remember that relatively minute amounts of CFCs were responsible for creating massive holes in the ozone layer.

CFCs are a bad analogy to make with CO2.

CFCs were highly reactive with ozone, which is our only shield from harmful forms of UV radiation from the sun. They were dangerous because they were also highly stable in the upper atmosphere and can persist for many years before they break down. There is no natural source or reservoir for CFCs.

CO2 is a gas that is continually cycled (consumed and produced) naturally throughout the ecosphere.

Remember that relatively minute amounts of CFCs were responsible for creating massive holes in the ozone layer.

CFCs are a bad analogy to make with CO2.

CFCs were highly reactive with ozone, which is our only shield from harmful forms of UV radiation from the sun. They were dangerous because they were also highly stable in the upper atmosphere and can persist for many years before they break down. There is no natural source or reservoir for CFCs.

CO2 is a gas that is continually cycled (consumed and produced) naturally throughout the ecosphere.

To add to your thoughts:\Sequestered Carbon was in previous generations largely a feat accomplished by plants and trees.
They gathered CO2 and built their complex structures from it . Only after burning it was it released back into the environment.

With modern farming methods and lumbering throughout the world this natural storage mechanism is being rapidly diminished.
Add to that the relentless population explosion and you have tremendous impact being placed on the planet.
For me it not so much the release of CO2 but the failure of the ecosystem to reabsorb it that is creating the deficit.

We must first reduce population expansion and the burden that puts on the eco system and then address the timely recycling of carbon back into the planet.

Last edited by Old Dawg; 22-02-2010 at 05:41 PM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

^CFC's are an entirely man made substance. Co2 is a perfectly natural result of all living animals, and is the food of plants. Even the Co2 derived from burning fossil fuels (which makes up a tiny percentage of the new Co2 released each year) is no more than a return of natural organic derived carbon into the natural lifecylce of the earth. It will eventually be swallowed up by plants, become fosilized, and be burned again one day by some future species (if we aren't still around).

Originally Posted by MrOilers

CFCs are a bad analogy to make with CO2.

CFCs were highly reactive with ozone, which is our only shield from harmful forms of UV radiation from the sun. They were dangerous because they were also highly stable in the upper atmosphere and can persist for many years before they break down. There is no natural source or reservoir for CFCs.

CO2 is a gas that is continually cycled (consumed and produced) naturally throughout the ecosphere.

Then you completely misunderstood the analogy. The point isn't the compare the two as reactants, the point is that it doesn't always take a high percentage of reactants / atmosphere volume to have a significant reaction.

CO2 may be naturally occurring, but when we are add more of it to the atmosphere than is usually added through natural processes (and less is being absorbed by those natural processes due to massive deforestation), it is entirely likely that it will impact the planet's climate system, which is easily affected as demonstrated by even predictable cyclical patterns like El Nino.

^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?

And you do realize that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by 30% or so in the past couple centuries, and that it is almost entirely attributable to mankind? There's no one with any credibility who actually disputes this scientific fact. Seriously, go try to find any research that says otherwise. You won't.

^it may have increased, but there is no conclusive proof that humans are the main reason. The level of oxygen is believed to have been much higher in the atmosphere in the times of the dinosaurs, do you blame humans for that? There is also no conclusive proof that this increase is a bad thing (especially given historically, the concentrations have been much higher). It must be nice for plants, and some sea vegetation (algae and other forms of life).

^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?

And you do realize that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by 30% or so in the past couple centuries, and that it is almost entirely attributable to mankind? There's no one with any credibility who actually disputes this scientific fact. Seriously, go try to find any research that says otherwise. You won't.

There are several other articles that address this topic but these ones are perhaps enough to satisfy your challenge above.

Excerpt: 'The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind' : Washington, DC — Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.” Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during today's Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing. “Many people don't realize that over geological time, we're really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million - ppm) – that's unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it's been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. To read Happer's complete opening statement click here “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it's baffling to me that we're so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained. Happer also noted that “the number of [skeptical scientists] with the courage to speak out is growing” and he warned “children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science.” [In December, Happer requested to be added to the groundbreaking

U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Happer was pressed by the Committee on whether rising CO2 fears are valid. “I don't think the laws of nature or physics and chemistry has changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a very prosperous palace and there is no reason to suddenly think it will become bad now,” Happer added. Happer is a professor in the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences. “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind,” Happer told the Committee. “What about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated,” he explained

Excerpt: Earths' Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause - Financial Post, June 07, 2008 Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began. GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere –the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries. [...] The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year. Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.

Excerpt: ScienceDaily (Aug. 4, 2009) — Pine trees grown for 12 years in air one-and-a-half times richer in carbon dioxide than today's levels produced twice as many seeds of at least as good a quality as those growing under normal conditions, a Duke University-led research team reported Aug. 3 at a national ecology conference. Carbon dioxide readings that high are expected everywhere by mid-century. The findings suggest some woody tree species could, in the future, out-compete grasses and other herbaceous plants that scientists had previously found can also produce more seeds under high-CO2, but of inferior quality.

CO2 is 'Plant Food': Skeptical Physicist Declares 'those who want to reduce use of fossil fuels are mortal enemies of the biosphere' -- 'This is a profoundly evil act'
– August 5, 2009
Dr. Frank J. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. He is the co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Excerpt: As the Senate considers the fate of the cap-and-trade bill, we should consider what it means for more carbon dioxide to be added to the atmosphere, something the bill intends to prevent. Carbon dioxide is first and foremost a plant food. In fact, plants take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use the energy from sunlight to combine the CO2 with water to yield glucose, the simplest sugar molecule. Carbon dioxide is also the source of all organic — this word just means “contains carbon” — molecules synthesized by plants. Without carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would be no organic molecules synthesized by plants. The less carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the fewer organic molecules synthesized by plants. All animals depend on plants to synthesize essential organic molecules. Without the organic molecules synthesized by plants, the animal world could not exist. Without plants, there would be no biosphere. Several million years ago, a disaster struck the terrestrial biosphere: there was a drastic reduction in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. The flowering plants evolved to be most efficient when the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 1,000 parts per million. But the percentage had dropped to a mere 200 parts per million. Plants tried to adapt by evolving a new, more efficient way of using the little remaining CO2. The new mechanism, the C4 pathway, appeared in grasses, including corn and wheat, which enabled these plants to expand into the plains. If the carbon dioxide percentage had stayed low — or worse, had decreased further — the entire biosphere would have been endangered. Fortunately for the plants and the rest of the biosphere depending on them, a wonderful thing happened about 150,000 years ago: a new animal species, **** sapiens, evolved. This creature was endowed with a huge brain, enabling it to invent a way to help the plants with their CO2 problem. Gigantic amounts of carbon had been deposited deep underground in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only were these reservoirs of carbon locked away in rock, but they were in forms of carbon that the plants could not use. [...] Due to the diligent plant-saving efforts of the humans, the CO2 atmospheric percentage is now at nearly 390 parts per million. Were humans to continue in their biosphere-rescuing efforts at the present rate, the CO2 level will be returned to normal in a mere few hundred years. The cap-and-trade bill is designed to stop this effort to save the biosphere. This is a profoundly evil act. [...] Those who want to reduce the use of fossil fuels are the mortal enemies of the biosphere. They must be stopped at all costs! Write your senator at once!'Crop yields could jump by up to 20%' with rising CO2–

March 6, 2009

Excerpt: "Research carried out by the Department of Primary Industries in Victoria has shown that wheat crop yields could jump by up to 20 per cent under global warming. The trial pumped more carbon dioxide into the air around the wheat, to the level that's expected in 2050. Glenn Fitzgerald, from the DPI, says that it's not all good news though. "The caveat there is that that assumes sufficient water and nitrogen," he says. "We're looking at basically how the fertilisation effect of C02 can offset some of the reductions in water that we know [NOT!] are coming.""

Excerpt: A global warming span from 53 million to 47 million years ago strongly influenced the biodiversity of western North America, geologists said. The warming spurred a biodiversity boom of plants and animals, the researchers reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Today, the middle of Wyoming is a vast desert, and a few antelope and deer are all you see," geologist Michael Woodburne, of the Museum of Northern Arizona, said. Fifty million years ago, however, when temperatures were at their highest, that area of Wyoming was a tropical rain forest teeming with lemur-like primates, small horses, forest rodents and other mammals, Woodburne said. "In fact, there were more species of mammals living in the western part of North America at that time than at any other time," he said. Woodburne's research into global warming was aided by Gregg Gunnell of the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology and Richard Stucky of the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

Excerpt: Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. "Camel Contest" in National Geographic Magazine Ancient Cemetery Found; Brings "Green Sahara" to Life Exodus From Drying Sahara Gave Rise to Pharaohs, Study Says Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago. [...] The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers). Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

Excerpt: It has been assumed that global warming would cause an expansion of the world's deserts, but now some scientists are predicting a contrary scenario in which water and life slowly reclaim these arid places. They think vast, dry regions like the Sahara might soon begin shrinking. [...]The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that rising global temperatures could cut West African agricultural production by up to 50% by the year 2020. But satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara, although the Sahel Belt, the semi-arid tropical savannah to the south of the desert, remains fragile. The fragility of the Sahel may have been exacerbated by the cutting of trees, poor land management and subsequent erosion of

Excerpt: With the short (5−15 year) RT results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

– August 5, 2009
By Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway

Excerpt: The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources.

^it may have increased, but there is no conclusive proof that humans are the main reason. The level of oxygen is believed to have been much higher in the atmosphere in the times of the dinosaurs, do you blame humans for that? There is also no conclusive proof that this increase is a bad thing (especially given historically, the concentrations have been much higher). It must be nice for plants, and some sea vegetation (algae and other forms of life).

Sorry, you're flat out wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to just have your own facts. In this very thread (and likely in response to you) I made several posts with links and citations to scientific studies that quite clearly show that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the direct result of mankind's actions, whether burning fossil fuels, making concrete, or land use changes.

You completely ignored them because they don't validate your personal beliefs. Why waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, when nothing will do so?

There are several other articles that address this topic but this one is perhaps enough to satisfy your challenge above.

Please fix the formatting, it's a disaster. In general though, the article doesn't argue that the CO2 concentration increase is or is not caused by mankind. It's a scientist saying "well hey it was higher in the past and it's been lower for awhile, so it's a good thing it's going back up!" That's total bunk. In the distant past many other factors were very different, and you can't wantonly say that X level of CO2 is good or bad without taking those in to account as well. Millions of years ago the sun's input was lower, as it is in a slow, steady increase over millions of billions of years. That's just one. There are many others. And no, the sun isn't responsible for the current warming, it's been ruled out repeatedly.

It's actually a laughably bad argument, anyone other than a layman largely ignorant of the earth's history and processes should almost be offended that a physicist would actually think that such a useless argument could fool anyone.

The further links about biomass and productivity again do NOT argue that CO2 concentration increases are not caused by mankind. They argue that it's good for the environment. Which again is laughable as we are in the middle of a massive die off of species and a reconfiguration of biospheres as plants and animals try to find a new equilibrium or niche in the face of a rapidly changing climate. The pace of change is far outside that which would be encountered in normal circumstances outside of massive events like asteroid impacts or massive upticks in volcanic activity. Normally such changes happen over tens of thousands to millions of years, not decades and centuries. Ecosystems are not coping well with such rapid change.

In short, you posted a bunch of talking points from some climate skeptic website that absolutely do not refute the scientific reality that mankind has significantly increase the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

Sorry, you're flat out wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to just have your own facts. In this very thread (and likely in response to you) I made several posts with links and citations to scientific studies that quite clearly show that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the direct result of mankind's actions, whether burning fossil fuels, making concrete, or land use changes.
.

There are other factors at play as well though, such as the normal and natural change in the rate of CO2 concentration.

Also, I don't see anything in that link that proves:

1. who an increase in CO2 will be bad for
2. who an increase in CO2 will be good for (and there will be life that will benefit, like plants)
3. whether or not an increase in CO2 concertration will increase temperatures, result in more climate "change", or net itself out (like how the ocean is for some reason cooling)
4. the econoimc cost of 1 versus the economic benefit of 2.
5. the intangible cost of 1 versus the intangible benefit of 2 - i.e. who decides which climate is right, which species should win, and which should lose?

^it may have increased, but there is no conclusive proof that humans are the main reason. The level of oxygen is believed to have been much higher in the atmosphere in the times of the dinosaurs, do you blame humans for that? There is also no conclusive proof that this increase is a bad thing (especially given historically, the concentrations have been much higher). It must be nice for plants, and some sea vegetation (algae and other forms of life).

Sorry, you're flat out wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to just have your own facts. In this very thread (and likely in response to you) I made several posts with links and citations to scientific studies that quite clearly show that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the direct result of mankind's actions, whether burning fossil fuels, making concrete, or land use changes.

You completely ignored them because they don't validate your personal beliefs. Why waste my time trying to convince you otherwise, when nothing will do so?

There are several other articles that address this topic but this one is perhaps enough to satisfy your challenge above.

Please fix the formatting, it's a disaster. In general though, the article doesn't argue that the CO2 concentration increase is or is not caused by mankind. It's a scientist saying "well hey it was higher in the past and it's been lower for awhile, so it's a good thing it's going back up!" That's total bunk. In the distant past many other factors were very different, and you can't wantonly say that X level of CO2 is good or bad without taking those in to account as well. Millions of years ago the sun's input was lower, as it is in a slow, steady increase over millions of billions of years. That's just one. There are many others. And no, the sun isn't responsible for the current warming, it's been ruled out repeatedly.

It's actually a laughably bad argument, anyone other than a layman largely ignorant of the earth's history and processes should almost be offended that a physicist would actually think that such a useless argument could fool anyone.

The further links about biomass and productivity again do NOT argue that CO2 concentration increases are not caused by mankind. They argue that it's good for the environment. Which again is laughable as we are in the middle of a massive die off of species and a reconfiguration of biospheres as plants and animals try to find a new equilibrium or niche in the face of a rapidly changing climate. The pace of change is far outside that which would be encountered in normal circumstances outside of massive events like asteroid impacts or massive upticks in volcanic activity. Normally such changes happen over tens of thousands to millions of years, not decades and centuries. Ecosystems are not coping well with such rapid change.

In short, you posted a bunch of talking points from some climate skeptic website that absolutely do not refute the scientific reality that mankind has significantly increase the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

Now you are talking complete nonsense.
You quite obviously cannot concede a point you have challenged and now attack the source as if the contents were skewed by the source they were gathered from.

What kind of nonsense are you talking here?
One of the several references (Happer) was addressing the United States congress for heavens sake!

Don't like my sources, then bring on some of your own.

Last edited by Old Dawg; 23-02-2010 at 10:16 AM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Now you are talking complete nonsense.
You quite obviously cannot concede a point you have challenged and now attack the source as if the contents were skewed by the source they wer gather from.
What kind of nonsense are you talking here? One of the references was addressing the United States congress for heavens sake!
Don't like my sources, then bring on some of your own.

None of what you posted challenges the point I made: mankind is causing CO2 to rise. None of them. Not a single one. And yet in your mind you somehow won the argument. It's baffling. Absolutely baffling.

Originally Posted by moahunter

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

Sorry, you're flat out wrong. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to just have your own facts. In this very thread (and likely in response to you) I made several posts with links and citations to scientific studies that quite clearly show that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the direct result of mankind's actions, whether burning fossil fuels, making concrete, or land use changes.
.

There are other factors at play as well though, such as the normal and natural change in the rate of CO2 concentration.

Also, I don't see anything in that link that proves:

1. who an increase in CO2 will be bad for
2. who an increase in CO2 will be good for (and there will be life that will benefit, like plants)
3. whether or not an increase in CO2 concertration will increase temperatures, result in more climate "change", or net itself out (like how the ocean is for some reason cooling)
4. the econoimc cost of 1 versus the economic benefit of 2.
5. the intangible cost of 1 versus the intangible benefit of 2 - i.e. who decides which climate is right, which species should win, and which should lose?

None of which are germane to the point we were discussing: the cause of the recent and rapid increase in CO2 concentration. You claimed there's no evidence that mankind is responsible, when in reality it's a settled issue. We're causing it. There is plenty of evidence. Therefore, you were wrong to have claimed otherwise.

The other questions you ask are absolutely much more complicated and difficult to answer, which is why reports like the IPCC that conglomerate thousands or research papers are quite useful, even if it contains some errors, oversights, or screwups. They give a generalized overview of a very wide ranging and complicated issue where there are indeed conflicting viewpoints and research, attempting to summarize what we know as of that moment the state of the world's climate, where it's going, and what it all means. So if you'd like an answer to those questions, go ahead and read even the executive summary of the last IPCC report, or wait for the next. Just keep in mind that it is not in and of itself definitive nor is it original research, and that some of the conclusions and assumptions are bound to change or be revised in the future (or found to be outright wrong) as further research is conducted. This is how science progresses, whether you like it or not.

But again, you started from the standpoint that we aren't causing CO2 to rise, and when proven wrong you simply move the goalposts and argue a different point. So I'm going to take the advice I gave a few posts ago and just not bother any further, it's a complete waste of time because there will be NO convincing you or others like you.

None of which are germane to the point we were discussing: the cause of the recent and rapid increase in CO2 concentration. You claimed there's no evidence that mankind is responsible, when in reality it's a settled issue. We're causing it. There is plenty of evidence. Therefore, [I]you were wrong to have claimed otherwise.

The link you provided showed evidence that the concentration of human derived CO2 has increased. That does not prove that humans are repsonsible for "the recent and rapid increase in CO2 concentration". There are natural fluctuations as well, which have a far greater impact. Only a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions are human derived. And, as said, even if CO2 is on the upswing, where it the proof that it causes climate change or global warming? Seems a bit tenous when the oceans are cooling. And, even if it does show the climate is warming, where is the proof that the impact of that will be adverse, or presents a "clear and present danger"? As an example, with a cooling ocean, there are going to be fewer hurricanes, not more (as climate extremists falsely claimed in the past). Isn't that a good thing?

The link you provided showed evidence that the concentration of human derived CO2 has increased. That does not prove that humans are repsonsible for "the recent and rapid increase in CO2 concentration". There are natural fluctuations as well, which have a far greater impact. Only a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions are human derived. And, as said, even if CO2 is on the upswing, where it the proof that it causes climate change or global warming? Seems a bit tenous when the oceans are cooling. And, even if it does show the climate is warming, where is the proof that the impact of that will be adverse, or presents a "clear and present danger"? As an example, with a cooling ocean, there are going to be fewer hurricanes, not more (as climate extremists falsely claimed in the past). Isn't that a good thing?

Almost every comment you have made regarding atmospheric CO2 concentration and mankind's influence is completely, totally, and verifiably wrong. Again, you don't get to have your own facts.

I am intentionally not responding to your further comments about whether or not CO2 causes warming and the comments about ocean temps (which are incorrect as well, by the way) because you can't even grasp the underlying issue of CO2 concentration.

^time will tell who is right, and who is wrong Marcel. I think if there is one thing a lot of people have learned recently, it is that you cannot trust a UN body that is supposed to represent the best climate scientists, to present a fair and balanced picture of the situation. Hopefully with better leadership, we will get a more realistic presentation of the facts, rather than broad sweeping comments about the dire consequences of not acting in the way they suggest. These consequences, and actions, are often not supported by the many scientists whose information they are cherry picking from. It is good for the science, that many of these scientists now have the courage to speak up about how their research is being misrepresented, without being shouted down as "deniers" by the likes of you, Al Gore, the UN, government funding bodies, or the media.

Almost every comment you have made regarding atmospheric CO2 concentration and mankind's influence is completely, totally, and verifiably wrong. Again, you don't get to have your own facts.

...

Hilarious! Your efforts are appreciated, however. You can lead a horse to the obvious ...

While the scientific community has inherent checks and balances that ultimately work toward objective results, it seems there will always be some segment of society claiming vast subterfuge. As if righteous scientists are maligned and bullied into hiding "the truth" by evil scientist overlords. I sometimes think that in order to get past the utter bunk, one has to look at an example like the Dover trial of 2005. In court, as opposed to a community BB, the ******** can't simply be left on the table.

^the bunk was made up by the UN body, who in a self serving way (as "climate change" being dire, increases their power), started making up lies about Himalyan glaciers melting and similar. Let's hope even more scientists will be able to start speaking up without feeling pressured by quasi scientific / political bodies to provide evidence to support their views For it seems, even many of those who support that the climate is changing, don't agree with the extreme/false conclusions being presented.

Now you are talking complete nonsense.
You quite obviously cannot concede a point you have challenged and now attack the source as if the contents were skewed by the source they wer gather from.
What kind of nonsense are you talking here? One of the references was addressing the United States congress for heavens sake!
Don't like my sources, then bring on some of your own.

None of what you posted challenges the point I made: mankind is causing CO2 to rise. None of them. Not a single one. And yet in your mind you somehow won the argument. It's baffling. Absolutely baffling.[QUOTE]

Methinks you are prevaricating as you have been asked here several times to back up your assumptions with some factual, peer reviewed evidence.
You cleverly avoid this undertaking and continue to berate the evidence presented.
As you point out, "It's baffling. Absolutely baffling."

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

It is good for the science, that many of these scientists now have the courage to speak up about how their research is being misrepresented, without being shouted down as "deniers" by the likes of you, Al Gore, the UN, government funding bodies, or the media.

Spot me using the term "denier" one time in the past couple pages and I will give you a cookie.

You just can't admit that you made numerous verifiably wrong statements about atmospheric CO2 concentration and mankind's influence on it, can you? Even in the face of scientific fact and multiple lines of inquiry. Do you not see the irony in that, when in the next breath you're accusing scientists of having nefarious intentions and/or sensationalizing research? Even if some ARE playing up valid research to make it sound more dire than it needs to be, and I agree that there's a lot of that going on, at least they have facts on their side.

This past discussion was NOT about anthropogenic climate change, it's causes and effects etc. It was a very specific, focused discussion of whether or not CO2 concentrations have been rising in our atmosphere (they have), whether those increases are exceptional (they are, after thousands of years of stability suddenly they jump 30% in 150 years), and whether those increases are caused by mankind (they are, multiple lines of evidence point that out).

Given that you cannot even admit that you were wrong and give creedence to actual scientific information I provided in my most recent posts as well as ones several weeks or months back, how are we to have any sort of debate that leads to meaningful progress if you instead continually change the goal posts to avoid admitting what should be obvious to anyone? You're wrong.

Originally Posted by Old Dawg

Methinks you are prevaricating as you have been asked here several times to back up your assumptions with some factual, peer reviewed evidence.
You cleverly avoid this undertaking and continue to berate the evidence presented.
As you point out, "It's baffling. Absolutely baffling."

Find me a single peer reviewed article that disputes the conclusion that mankind is responsible for increased CO2 concentration and I'll eat my shorts. For the last time, it is a settled issue. Yet right here in this very thread we have several people unwilling or unable to admit it, despite having absolutely zero basis upon which to ground their belief that mankind is NOT responsible for increased CO2 in our atmosphere.

It's not surprising though, really. Just incredibly frustrating. Unfortunately that's the way the human brain works in most circumstances. People irrationally and subconsciously form their beliefs, and their rational conscious self then goes about trying to justify them. That's why really smart people can still believe in really stupid things. Take your pick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Another interesting article, maybe the mistake the climate scientists made was not getting a mathematician to peer review their work? The good news is that scientists can now speak their minds, climate science is moving from pseudo science to real science, and it is fun to watch it grow so that scientific skepticisim is welcomed and encouraged, not shouted down.

...For example, one IPCC myth was even debunked before it was adopted. In the first, 2002, edition of my book, Taken By Storm, with Ross McKitrick we showed the Himalayan glaciers were not at risk due to global warming. Yet this invention, attributed to the World Wildlife Federation, still appeared, five years afterward, in the 2007 IPCC report.

The IPCC author responsible subsequently admitted he put it in to scare people.

...

The serious damage of the great fervor was not from these noisy secondary cultural explosions. It was from the sustained, immoral attacks on scientific skepticism and skeptical scientists. The attacks began the moment science became subordinate to policy.

That is corruption of science, and we will all eventually suffer if it is not consciously stopped.

— Dr. Christopher Essex is

a professor of applied mathematics at the University

of Western Ontario and co-author of Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming

I never said that the Co2 increase was not caused by humans, all I said was there is uncertainty, we just don't know for sure (like much of climate science today). There are studies that query why Co2 levels may have been higher in the pre-industrial age, and there are studies like below, which suggest climate itself may be the main factor (i.e. not fossil fuels):

Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin

Find me a single peer reviewed article that disputes the conclusion that mankind is responsible for increased CO2 concentration and I'll eat my shorts. For the last time, it is a settled issue. Yet right here in this very thread we have several people unwilling or unable to admit it, despite having [I]absolutely zero basis upon which to ground their belief that mankind is NOT responsible for increased CO2 in our atmosphere.

The conventional representation of the impact on the atmosphere of the use of fossil fuels is to state that the annual increases in concentration of CO2 come from fossil fuels and the balance of some 50% of fossil fuel CO2 is absorbed in the oceans or on land by physical and chemical processes.
An examination of the data from:
i)
measurements of the fractionation of CO2 by way of Carbon-12 and Carbon-13 isotopes,
ii)
the seasonal variations of the concentration of CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere and
iii)
the time delay between Northern and Southern Hemisphere variations in CO2,
raises questions about the conventional explanation of the source of increased atmospheric CO2.
The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.

Actually, the thread is on global warming, or perhaps the more modern term, "climate change" (since it may actually be cooling, at least, at the moment).

That's all fine and dandy, but the discussion in the last several pages has been about a specific topic, that of atmospheric CO2 concentration. You have made numerous incorrect statements, and instead of either admitting you were wrong or proving that you were right, you continually move the goal posts and attempt to shift the argument to another topic because you're unable to internalize the idea that you might be incorrect about it, despite having no factual basis which your misguided belief can rest upon.

Let's review again your statements specifically about CO2, and not the general ones about climate change:

Originally Posted by Moahunter

^You realize that for all the CO2 that is realeased by people, volcanoes, etc., it still only makes up 0.0387% (less than a thousandth) of the atmosphere?

Irrelevant. Further, that concentration has gone up 30% in modern times after tens of thousands of years in relative equilibrium, perfectly coinciding with mankind's rapid industrialization and massive uptick in emissions.

Originally Posted by moahunter

Even the Co2 derived from burning fossil fuels (which makes up a tiny percentage of the new Co2 released each year) is no more than a return of natural organic derived carbon into the natural lifecylce of the earth.

It's 3-5%, actually. However those emissions are carbon that has been sequestered over hundreds of millions of years, all being released back in to the atmosphere in a matter of decades. The emissions are swamping natural processes, resulting in the rapid uptick we've seen in concentrations in the past 150 years.

Originally Posted by moahunter

^it may have increased, but there is no conclusive proof that humans are the main reason.

Completely, totally, 100% wrong as per the numerous links I have provided. There is ample conclusive proof, so much so that even most AGW skeptics don't even bother trying to dispute it. Not ones with any intelligence or scientific knowledge anyway. The case is closed on that particular issue.

Originally Posted by moahunter

The level of oxygen is believed to have been much higher in the atmosphere in the times of the dinosaurs, do you blame humans for that?

Again completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by moahunter

There is also no conclusive proof that this increase is a bad thing (especially given historically, the concentrations have been much higher). It must be nice for plants, and some sea vegetation (algae and other forms of life).

There is ample conclusive proof all over the place, even if you don't accept AGW itself. Again, oceans will grow more acidic as the concentration increases, and we will see a massive die off of corals and other ocean species that cannot adapt quickly enough to the new ph balance. That's just one of many, many things.

Originally Posted by moahunter

The link you provided showed evidence that the concentration of human derived CO2 has increased. That does not prove that humans are repsonsible for "the recent and rapid increase in CO2 concentration".

Yes, it does actually, because the natural carbon cycle is fairly well balanced. It takes very large events to significantly alter it.

Originally Posted by moahunter

There are natural fluctuations as well, which have a far greater impact.

Please provide further information, as I am unaware of any natural explanations for the change in CO2 that the earth has experience in the past century and a half, and so is the entirety of the scientific community. You may be on track for a Nobel here...

Originally Posted by moahunter

Only a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions are human derived.

Again, 3-5% of the total, and the "natural" emissions are all part of a natural balance that's been very steady for a very long time. That 3-5% is more than enough to significantly alter our atmosphere, and for about the tenth time there are multiple lines of conclusive research that quite clearly show that mankind is indeed responsible for the overwhelming majority of the increase in concentration in the past 150 years.

You have given not a single shred of evidence demonstrating otherwise, while I have provided numerous links to scientific research that back up my contentions, yet you persist in insisting otherwise. Again, it's absolutely baffling.

Jumping back to your most recent post:

Originally Posted by moahunter

I never once above said that Co2 was not increasing, or even that people are not responsible. I simply questioned whether there is undeniable proof of it.

You said that there's no conclusive evidence that people are the cause. Why say such a thing if you aren't angling towards arguing that they aren't? Regardless, I've offered multiple, multiple links to information that quite clearly demonstrates that you are wrong, and yet you're completely unable to admit as much.

What burden of proof do you require that when satisfied you will admit that mankind is increasing CO2 concentrations through it's actions? Because as of right now, there is plenty of very conclusive research saying just that. Considering you have offered absolutely ZERO evidence to the contrary, I find your persistent denials of mankind's responsibility for the increased concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere to be exceedingly and willfully ignorant. There's really no other way to describe it.

Originally Posted by moahunter

Article

It's not clear if that's a truly peer reviewed article, actually. That particular journal is well known for a climate change skepticism and is rarely cited by scientists.

It's not clear if that's a truly peer reviewed article, actually. That particular journal is well known for a climate change skepticism and is rarely cited by scientists.

In other words, because you don't like that scientist and his peers, the science must be bad. Okey dokey, it has to be peer reviewed by people you agree with and not the evil "deniers" - but if shifting the goal post does it for you...

It is good for the science, that many of these scientists now have the courage to speak up about how their research is being misrepresented, without being shouted down as "deniers" by the likes of you, Al Gore, the UN, government funding bodies, or the media.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

So a 30% increase in CO2 would be 2.33 to 3.02% ?

...if that was actually a true figure to begin with.

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are approx 72.37% of all greenhouse gases

Last edited by Old Dawg; 23-02-2010 at 02:51 PM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

It's not clear if that's a truly peer reviewed article, actually. That particular journal is well known for a climate change skepticism and is rarely cited by scientists.

In other words, because you don't like that scientist and his peers, the science must be bad. Okey dokey, it has to be peer reviewed by people you agree with and not the evil "deniers" - but if shifting the goal post does it for you...

So let me get this straight, I post nearly a dozen links that lead to hundreds of papers published in prestigious scientific journals that you do not address in any way, shape or form and you post a link to a single paper that's not even peer reviewed (it was published under the "short communication" category, I believe) and published in a journal that has little or no respect in the scientific community, and somehow we're on equal footing?

Like I said, there's little point in trying to debate this topic when confronted with such a mindset. Believe what you want to believe.

All I can say is, whether I'm wrong or right, eventually we'll all know the truth. (and of course, I'll be right as will moa)

Well, when you figure out the difference between science and dogma (e.g. the difference between evolution and creationism,) you'll be a great deal closer to being able to distinguish the difference between objectivity and desire. That and clueing in that having multiple IDs doesn't really help much, either ...

You might want to work on that homophobia issue of yours, too. Best of luck.

Well you could start with looking up the difference between "weathermen" and climatologists, and/or the difference between meteorology and climatology and why the inability to be 100% prescient about weather in a week says little or nothing about climatologist's ability to make predictions of changes in the average global climate when we make significant changes to the composition of our atmosphere.

Well I guess you told me!

I was making a point about using "data" to predict future natural occurrences.

It's much like using chicken bones to determine the fate of some zombie believers.

It's rather difficult to have a meaningful conversation when the object becomes a critque of the writer instead of the idea.

7 Day forecasts are best guess.. Once you get past 48 hours the prediction is more like best guess.

I studied Edmonton weather forecasts for six months from the EJ. I found that 5 day forecasts were about as accurate as next day forecasts. The two, three and four day forecasts had statistically greater errors.

The predictions 5 days out turned out to be accurate to within 2 degrees, predictions 2-4 days out averaged over 4 degrees error. Next day forecasts were accurate to 2 degrees on average. Most of the predictions were for warmer weather than what actually got.

Give credit to weather forecasters.

They predict the weather right, 100% of the time.

They just get the location wrong, 100% of the time.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Like I said, there's little point in trying to debate this topic when confronted with such a mindset. Believe what you want to believe.

I will. Right now, I believe much of the science is inconclusive at best, and I am not alone in that belief.

Self proclaimed "climatologists" have staked their reputation on climate change, and largely support it. That isn't surprising, as believing in climate change justifies their existence, and adds to their ability to gain funding. More telling is that despite all the demands to conform, only 47% of economic geologists, and 64% percent of meteorologists believe in significant human involvement in climate change - i.e. a significant percentage don't.

I think the critical thought numbers will increase now, for academic criticism (such as pointing out how poor a lot of the statistics has been), won't necessarily result in one being labeled a "denier" by the media or academic peers. People have figured out that what is key is finding out the truth of the matter, before drastically changing our economy, shutting down industries and destroying well paying jobs on the basis of false hype over an imminent climate disaster.

Like I said, there's little point in trying to debate this topic when confronted with such a mindset. Believe what you want to believe.

I will. Right now, I believe much of the science is inconclusive at best, and I am not alone in that belief.

Self proclaimed "climatologists" have staked their reputation on climate change, and largely support it. That isn't surprising, as believing in climate change justifies their existence, and adds to their ability to gain funding. More telling is that despite all the demands to conform, only 47% of economic geologists, and 64% percent of meteorologists believe in significant human involvement in climate change - i.e. a significant percentage don't.

I think the critical thought numbers will increase now, for academic criticism (such as pointing out how poor a lot of the statistics has been), won't necessarily result in one being labeled a "denier" by the media or academic peers. People have figured out that what is key is finding out the truth of the matter, before drastically changing our economy, shutting down industries and destroying well paying jobs on the basis of false hype over an imminent climate disaster.

Self proclaimed "climatologists" have staked their reputation on climate change, and largely support it.

What do you even mean by this statement? Are we going to go around calling people "self pro-claimed 'physicists'" because in 400 years of scientific study those stupid physicists still can't nail gravity down? Maybe those self-proclaimed "biologists" will get around to finding clear, direct evidence of speciation to finally "prove" evolution happens? And those silly self-proclaimed "economists" might one day actually predict en masse an economic or financial system collapse before it happens.

Your dismissiveness of people who have spent their lives studying a particular field of science would sound downright comical were it directed at most any other field.

Originally Posted by moahunter

More telling is that despite all the demands to conform, only 47% of economic geologists, and 64% percent of meteorologists believe in significant human involvement in climate change - i.e. a significant percentage don't.

I'm not sure if you didn't expect me to read the link, but you'll have to try better next time. Because while you cherry picked out the statistics for economic geologists (basically people who make their living off mining, hrrmmm, could their livelihood be threatened by a clamp down of emissions?) and meteorologists (who study short term weather patterns, and NOT long term climate) the most salient and important quotation was left out:

Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered "risen" to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% answered yes to question 2.

So thanks for lending support to the cause, I guess. The people most knowledgeable about the field are also the most likely to support the AGW theory. I suppose we should listen to the geologists bent on lopping the top off another mountain, eh?

Originally Posted by moahunter

That isn't surprising, as believing in climate change justifies their existence, and adds to their ability to gain funding.

This is again laughably ignorant. If man isn't actually causing the current warming trend, suddenly everyone can stop studying the climate further? Do you really think that's how science and research operate? There were climatologists before AGW became popularized, although admittedly the field has seen rapid growth in the past half century as it wasn't very possible to study prior to the advent of computers, satellites, and many other techniques required to analyze what the climate had done in the past. Even if AGW is found to have been a red herring, climatologists will continue on doing what they've been doing, which is studying the climate and the influence of both natural and man-made forcings on it.

That's like saying that if by some massive, mind boggling discovery we discover that evolution by natural selection is no longer a valid theory that we can tell all the biologists to go home, the case has been closed. It's ludicrous.

That isn't surprising, as believing in climate change justifies their existence, and adds to their ability to gain funding.

This is again laughably ignorant. If man isn't actually causing the current warming trend, suddenly everyone can stop studying the climate further? Do you really think that's how science and research operate?

Well, it seems you do, because you say we should ignore the views of economic geologists because of their vested interest. It is human nature - you should learn a bit about it, you might be surprised to learn that scientists are humans to. The more important ones work is, perhaps even so important that the world depends on it, the more status one has. False claims and exaggeration can make one even more powerful if those lies are believed (like glaciers melting in 35 years in the Himalayas, or Al Gores hockey stick). The bubble has popped though, people are no longer going to simply accept false scare tactics, the real science, and real scientific criticism (which doesn't involve labeling people who don't blindly accept dogma as being ignorant), can begin.

Perhaps because apparently he has zero training as a scientist? He's a journalist by training. If he wants to publish a research paper that debunks climate change and submit it for peer review in a respected journal, he's more than welcome to.

Perhaps because apparently he has zero training as a scientist? He's a journalist by training. If he wants to publish a research paper that debunks climate change and submit it for peer review in a respected journal, he's more than welcome to.

Err, I believe the question was fair in the light of Mr. Gore not being a "chosen one" yet representing one side of the debate.
There is plenty of published data without having to repeat the exisiting research in order to have a reasonable debate.

I was not aware that one required certain criteria in order to enter into a debate.

Who would be selecting those criteria, the fruit scientists?

Last edited by Old Dawg; 24-02-2010 at 11:29 AM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Which sort of highlights the difference between the "theory of climate change" and the "fact of evolution". Evolution is being tested continuously by various scientists in various disciplines, from physicists, geologists, biologists, etc. We learn more about it and it expands the knowledge. There is no pending "doom" from evolution.

But with climate science, we have a small group of climatologists (per the poll above) who are convinced of "climate change" (whatever that is, as it has not been defined in a falsifiable way), but a lot of skepticism from scientists in other fields who are challenging the shoddy application of their disciplines (for example, statistics).

Which sort of highlights the difference between the "theory of climate change" and the "fact of evolution". Evolution is being tested continuously by various scientists, from physicists, geologist, biologists, etc. We learn more about it and it expands the knowledge. There is no pending "doom" from evolution.

But with climate science, we have 50 odd climatologists (per the poll above) who are convinced of "climate change" (whatever that is, as it has not been defined in a falsifiable way), but a lot of skepticism from scientists in other fields who are challenging the shoddy application of their disciplines (for example, statistics).

What? You honestly think that there's 50 climatologists in the whole world who support climate change? That poll was only a few thousand scientists in total across a wide range of fields. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists studying climatology. Not to mention that 96% of 79 is 76, lol.

As far as scientists in other fields, speaking in general terms and using your own poll, 75% of respondents in that poll who are scientists or researchers of some sort agree that mankind is a significant contributing factor in the changing temperatures. 15% were unsure, and less than 10% answered "no."

So please define "a lot of skepticism from scientists in other fields" when less than 10% of them outright question the consensus view.

^whoopps, I edited that. I doubt there a thousands of PHD climatologists that only study the climate, but even if there are, until there is a consenus among all scientific bodies that the evidence is irrefutable (like the case with evolution), I don't think the broad claims that are being made, and are often now shown to be false, can be trusted.

Hopefully as we learn more, the science will move from Psuedo / religious zeal of pending doom, to a more conclusive footing that we can maybe one day start basing economic decisions on. Maybe one day we will even be able to manipulate the atmosphere and climate to the most desirable state (whatever that is) once the technology allows us (using cloud seeding or other technologies).

Right, so when the next funky string/brane/infinite universe physics theory is brought forward, we'll be sure to ask a bunch of chemists or economists or biologists what their opinion is to verify the research, instead of, you know, other physicists. Good call.

Perhaps because apparently he has zero training as a scientist? He's a journalist by training. If he wants to publish a research paper that debunks climate change and submit it for peer review in a respected journal, he's more than welcome to.

It really is amazing that Newsweek's "Thinking Man's Thinking Man" Al Gore flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school. (How many people that flunk out of divinity school then get an admission to Law School AT THE SAME UNIVERSITY?
Gore whose father was senator from that same state..

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

^not sure you have been following the media recently, but the message has already died. Couldn't have happened at a better time as well (when we are starting to come out of recession and begining to grow again).

Why all the focus on Al Gore? Can't kill the message, so kill the (unappointed, self-declared) messenger instead?

The premise set above here that lord Monckton did not have the proper credentials to debate Global Warming as he had studied as a journalist at some time in his life.

I simply pointed out that the lead proponent/ Nobel prize winner/ etc/etc apparently tried and failed to obtain academic stature in both Divinity and law before getting involved with politics and people at Goldman Sacs.

You may, as I, find that inconvenient to a truthful solution.

Nothing like a level playing field.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Al Gore created himself as a global warming expert, he was willing to accept an Oscar, a Nobel prize for science based on dubious truths or in fact (probably unknown to him) lies by the IPCC and others. So some of the slings and arrows directed at him he did earn. Of course he also invented the internet too.

As for the "real topic of at hand, which is global warming", the reality of global warming isn't so clear thanks to the lies and obfuscation by the IPCC.

^ Therefore, worthy of discussion in a thread that was created for it.

Al Gore created the position for himself, that's exactly my point. He wasn't appointed as a spokesperson nor is he behind the science. Hack him down all you want, I just feel it belongs somewhere other than in a thread that's really not about him

It really is amazing that Newsweek's "Thinking Man's Thinking Man" Al Gore flunked out of divinity school and dropped out of law school. (How many people that flunk out of divinity school then get an admission to Law School AT THE SAME UNIVERSITY?
Gore whose father was senator from that same state..

Which means what exactly? Gore is not a researcher, he's an advocate. What he says or does really has nothing to do with the science of climate change at all. He's trying to bring knowledge to the public about a topic that's not well understood by layman, as this thread has amply demonstrated. But just because he's on the "right" side of the debate doesn't mean he himself is right. And even if he's wrong about some things or predictions, that doesn't mean the underlying scientific case for anthropogenic climate change is any more or less strong. He doesn't make the science, he popularizes it.

Now if someone is speaking out against an overwhelming scientific consensus, yes, you bet your butt I'll look in to what background they have in the field and who's buying them lunch. Considering they have nothing else to fall back on such as their own or other research that actually supports what they're saying, what else are they to be judged on but their reputation?

You should go look up your good Lord's comments about people suffering from AIDS back in the 80's. Lovely stuff.

Originally Posted by moahunter

^as of right now, the vote is 31 to 31 (23+8 ), with 8 undecided. Per Marcel, half the people on C2E are ignorant, like me and IKAN104

I'd say most are just misinformed and not familiar with the actual science, but instead talking points from various commentators on BOTH sides of the fence. As I've said before, there's no question that some scientists have crossed the line from researcher to advocate, and that's a problem if they're trying to do both at once.

^I think part of the problem is that there are far too many variables to reliably model the situation.

If the climate scientists had accurately predicted that the oceans would cool (even with the recent increase in human Co2 emissions), or that we would go into a short cooling average temperature phase, then I would have been very impressed. I would even be impressed if they could predict how long this cooling phase will last (I don't see them making public predictions). That would tell me the models might have some validity.

However, we were told the opposite, that the climate would get hoter even sooner than expected, and that hurricanes and other storms would soon get worse. That didn't happen. Now we have a situation, where to save scientific reputations, "other explanations" have to be searched for. This scarmbling around does not instill sufficient confidence to be basing economic policy decisions on.

Another factor that has been not fully examined is the active volcanoes under the oceans and what part(s )they may play in distorting the atmosphere either directly via release of noxious gases or indirectly, by altering temperatures and subsequent ocean currents.
We are not yet able to scientifically correlate the activity of sun spots on our sun with changes in weather patterns here on earth.
Until these factors are understood more fully it is difficult if not impossible to come up with a solution or even to be proactive.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

A new study, funded by Nasa, has found that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little impact on the rainforest's vegetation.

The findings appear to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical grassland.

I read that of the 36 weather data collecting stations across Canada's north only one remains in operation.
That must make it extremely difficult to predict any sort of change in weather patterns.
We seem to be reenacting the fable of the king's new clothes or the Millennium melt down.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Theory

Originally Posted by Old Dawg

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.

You are correct if you meant the strict meaning of scientific theory. However keep in mind that the established scientific method is in-fact started by establishing an opinion first - what is called hypotheses. After formulating the hypotheses then the scientist establishes proving procedures. Once the hypotheses proven by the procedure, then it is become a scientific theory. It stays as scientific theory as long as new data and researches don't contradict the theory. This is how science works.

^I think the "problem" with that, is that a law is a simple principle, so it would need to be "laws" of evolution, which begs, what are those various laws (e.g. natural selection)?. From wiki:

Related concepts and terminology

Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses. Well-tested explanations are called theories.

"Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty". In the words of Stephen J. Gould: In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." [2]

"Proof" of a theory does not exist in natural sciences. Proof only exists in formal sciences, such as mathematics. Experimental observation of the predictions made by a hypothesis or theory is called validation.

A scientific law is a concept related to a scientific theory. Very well-established "theories" that rely on a simple principle are often called scientific "laws". For example, it is common to encounter reference to "the law of gravity", "the law of natural selection", or the "laws of evolution."

You are perhaps right though, in that a theory does not become a fact like I suggested above. Rather, our understanding of the theory allows us to observe the fact.

I suppose climate change is a fact, for we know looking through historical records (ice ages, and hot periods), that the climate changes. Unless of course, climate change means something else to do with CO2 or simlar, in which case, it is merely a hypothesis.

Right, I forgot about the difference of validation and proof. It important to know that scientific theory can never be proven, only temporary validated (i.e. validated with all the facts available to the present).

Originally Posted by moahunter

You are perhaps right though, in that a theory does not become a fact like I suggested above. Rather, our understanding of the theory allows us to observe the fact.

Fact is about something that has happened. A scientific theory or law have to be consistent with all the fact available, plus it should be able to predict "future facts".

Originally Posted by moahunter

I suppose climate change is a fact, for we know looking through historical records (ice ages, and hot periods), that the climate changes

The fact is that climate has been changing. The related theory is that the climate will keep changing.

Another problem for climate change scientists. Did you ever hear the claim that sea levels will rise when the climate warms? Well, it seems that sea levels were actually higher during the last ice age (which conflicts directly with this claim). Additionally, it seems an ice age can naturally occur in rapid time, not the slow natural rate that has been claimed. And yes, the source of the research is hot off the press, peer reviewed, top quality science, the conclusion being, all of today's climate models might be significantly wrong:

There are two conclusions from this work that stand out. The first is that sea-levels were higher by at least 3 feet during the last interglacial and even during one 4000 year long warm period after the termination of interglacial conditions. This implies that an additional rise in sea-levels in the future would not be an indication of abnormal global warming, as claimed by some climate change alarmists. The fact is, recent sea-levels have been remarkably stable. According to the new speleothem data “mean sea level has remained stable on Mallorca for the past ~2800 years.” The researchers cite other, corroborating data:

We therefore consider the simple interpretation of our data that eustatic sea level during MIS 5a stood around +1 m relative to present sea level, implying less ice on Earth 81,000 years ago than today. Although this interpretation conflicts with the generally accepted eustatic sea-level curve based on the far-field sites of Barbados and New Guinea, it is consistent with a number of other estimates from around the world, including those from the Bahamas, the U.S. Atlantic Coastal Plain, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, and California.

...The second interesting point is that the conventional wisdom regarding onset of a glacial period, that it is a slow and gradual affair, is quite possibly wrong. Because of the relationship between sea-level and continental ice volume, an accurate sea-level history has been sought by scientists interested in ice-age cycles and their underlying causes. This study has important implications for currently accepted relationships among glacial ice volume, historic CO2 levels and global temperature change. In the words of the authors:

Ice-age theory has long assumed gradual ice buildup and more rapid ice melting in the generally accepted model of the ~100-ky cycle of glaciation. Instead, the emerging body of evidence suggests that both melting and accumulation can be very rapid during discrete intervals of time when specific conditions prevail. Furthermore, the 100-ky model of glaciation has always faced the problem that although the deep-sea δ18O record is dominated by a 100-ky cycle, northern high-latitude summer insolation has negligible power in this band. Our data from Mallorca and data from other sites around the world indicate the possibility that eustatic sea level was near modern levels at ~80 ka. If this is true, the 100-ky cycle so universally accepted as the main rhythm of the Middle and Late Quaternary glaciations, in fact, applies rather poorly to ice growth and decay, but much better to carbon dioxide, methane, and temperatures recorded by polar ice.

^I noticed it in the latest issue of Scientific American, even in that magazine which has been and still is largely pro-"climate change theory", the tone in the editorial is suggestive that some reconsideration is going on.

^I noticed it in the latest issue of Scientific American, even in that magazine which has been and still is largely pro-"climate change theory", the tone in the editorial is suggestive that some reconsideration is going on.

There really isn't, actually. Refinement and correction of previous research? Yes. Reconsideration that increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to warming? Absolutely not.

As far as the link you posted, I was unable to look at the actual study it was posted on, and I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to dispute the blog's claims about the research.

UN climate change chief Rajendra Pachauri says sorry — and switches to neutral
The outspoken chairman of the UN’s climate change body is to adopt a neutral advisory role and has agreed to stop making statements demanding new taxes and other radical policies on cutting emissions. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...SS&attr=797093

He should step down, no question. It's unfortunate that he's not. Whether or not he is responsible for the errors that have been found, he's a polarizing figure and staying around will only lend more ammunition to those trying to undermine the science.

No question, though, that scientists should stick to the science and stay out of advocacy. Or if they are going to be advocates, they shouldn't be involved science and reporting.

He should step down, no question. It's unfortunate that he's not. Whether or not he is responsible for the errors that have been found, he's a polarizing figure and staying around will only lend more ammunition to those trying to undermine the science.

No question, though, that scientists should stick to the science and stay out of advocacy. Or if they are going to be advocates, they shouldn't be involved science and reporting.

When the science becomes fiction or worse, then the people affected have every right to refute the results. If the results are tampered or delibrately misinterpreted for profit then we have every right to undermine them.
Perhaps an obligation to do so.
This destruction of confidence in the scientific community does little to get people on board to solve the real problem which is OVER POPULATION.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Have you been hearing over the last few years about how the Arctic was melting? How soon (2013 per predictions of no summer ice) ships would sail through on a regular basis? Well, seems all that melt, since 2001, was reversed this winter. Of course, per the "climate change" faithful, it was a "fluke":

Northern sea ice is nearly back to average levels globally for the first time in at least a decade after years of spectacular declines.

The computer model predictions have proven wrong, the world wasn't supposed to cool over the last five to ten years. Is that a "fluke", or maybe, dare I say it, the models were wrong / did not account for all the variables?

Through perhaps no fault of his own, Pres. Obama has inherited and generated the largest debt load the United States has ever experienced.
"Politics" is focused on the need for the party to survive and secondly the party's ability to control and extract benefits from the society it rules.

It appears eminent Obama will crush his economy with massive CO2 taxes as early as next week using the premise that he is saving the planet and the American people from global warming.
Global warming will loom larger than real life for some time to come as it is the last weapon in the arsenal of politicians to glean more from society than society is willing to give.

Mr. Gore and his friends who have somewhat wisely set up carbon trading companies will profit directly from this hoax]

Last edited by Old Dawg; 06-04-2010 at 08:26 AM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.

Northern sea ice is nearly back to average levels globally for the first time in at least a decade after years of spectacular declines.

Selective quotation does not a good argument make:

Originally Posted by The same article

Mark Serreze of the U.S-based National Snow and Ice Data Center says ice in most northern waters, including Canada's eastern regions, is still well below average.

He says skeptics should be careful to distinguish between weather - which is local and short-term - and climate, which covers broad stretches of time and space.

It's funny, there's probably peer reviewed studies being published weekly if not daily that further fleshes out and supports the overwhelming scientific case for climate change. However apparently that doesn't count for much.

However if there's a problem found with a particular paper, or an anomaly shows up somewhere regionally, it's a HUGE PROBLEM FOR THE THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE.

^the models aren't accurate - for they would have predicted the oceans cooling, and the ice returning to the Arctic, if they were. If we get a few winters like the last one, sea ice will be back to historical norms (although it is a matter of opinion what is normal, given how rapidly the climate has changed in the past). We don't know what is going on, other than the climate is changing, something it always has.

It is interesting to see the UK media has totally caught onto this story, but it hasn't really made news in North America yet.

The poll on this thread for C2E is about 50:50 between those who think humans are causing climate change, and those who either think we aren't, or it simply isn't happening. Seems, that it is the same in the UK now, to the point where "climate change" is becoming a divisive phrase to be avoided:

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

...

Professor Rapley said that the gallery, which is to open in November before the climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, would refrain from scaring visitors with apocalyptic predictions of rising sea levels and would be honest about the conflicting views on the scale of possible changes to the climate.

“You can argue about how much effect the carbon in the atmosphere will have on the system and what we should do about it,” he said. “The role of the museum should be to lay out honestly and fairly what the climate science community has found out about the science.

“There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not.”

What I think will be interesting, is if our political parties will change course. Right now, both the PC's and Conservatives acknowledge climate change and are supporting programs in respect of it (e.g. carbon capture). Will that change, if the skepticism keeps growing, or will they simply decide that there are more votes to lose from not spending on climate change, than spending on it?

I did read some of the forums about global warming and it does make me laugh the whole thing, why ??

for many many years, humans does broke many enviroment laws and laughed at the gov't . many companies did dump all kinds of stuff in the water. take a look at great lakes, I remember 40 yrs ago that the beaches there was very beautiful and many were able to swim in the water but now, not anymore because the water is really bad and smelly because humans did pee in the lakes and oil spills from the tankers and chemicals was thrown in water to save money rather than spend millions to get out of facilities to go other waste plants for recycling. pollution was caused by humans that make global warming to become worse every year

The poll on this thread for C2E is about 50:50 between those who think humans are causing climate change, and those who either think we aren't, or it simply isn't happening. Seems, that it is the same in the UK now, to the point where "climate change" is becoming a divisive phrase to be avoided:

What I think will be interesting, is if our political parties will change course. Right now, both the PC's and Conservatives acknowledge climate change and are supporting programs in respect of it (e.g. carbon capture). Will that change, if the skepticism keeps growing, or will they simply decide that there are more votes to lose from not spending on climate change, than spending on it?

It's a well known fact that politicians and governments will do any thing that they can to maintain power.
They are like weather vanes of current public opinion.
If there are enough warm bodies out there that buy into the man made climate warming nonsense then they will institute a tax on us all as a response to the problem.
The tax will eventually not address climate change but will fritter away in bizarre vote getting projects like building ice arenas and propping up pensions that they have already plundered.
p.s. The little survey at the begining of this thread shows two things:
1. How few people here are interested in climate change.
2. That 50% of them have not read or understood the material available .

Last edited by Old Dawg; 12-04-2010 at 08:50 AM.

"Most people do not listen with the intent to understand;they listen with the intent to reply.